The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-02-23
CANNON In CHANCERY.
THE SHERIFF In THE SECOND
STAGE OF HIS TROUBLES.
Learned Counsel and q Just Judge
Bring Him Through With
out a Sc0I CHI.

The case OF Chairman d. c. Slaugh-
ter vs.. Sheriff Cannon came up in the
CnanceIy Court yesterday. 1t was a
pet ton from the Chairman 10 have
the latter official committed for con.
tempt in disIegsrding the injunction
to desist from enforcing the orders OF
Criminal Court Judge DuBose regard
ing possession OF the County Court
room. The answer OF the defendant
is substantially the same as that Of
fsred before the County Court, with
the following additions Immediately
bearing upon the cause in chancery.
THE ANSWER.
1t is true that the writ of injunction
was served on respondent, as averred
in the petition Of the Chairman. 1t is
true that at the time the il junction
was served respondent had, under the
order of the Criminal Court Judge,
partially removed the desks, furniture
aud outfit OF the room used by the
Comfy Court, but at the time that
body WIS not in session, and, go far as
he knew, the fiat for said injunction
mad not been awarded. When the in
Junction was served he desisted from
the execution OF the order Il said
Criminal Court Judge AID took no
further cogoizaDce of said order. After
service of the Injunction he admits
having locked the door of the County
Court room and retained the keys OF
the same; but he DID this in good
faith upon ii @ advice of his counsel,
on the idea that the said ioj junction, "a
far re The same was mandatory, would
not be enft re, d afterwal d, and before
the petition was filed it was modified
bv revocation of so much OF the fiat
OF the Chancellor therefor as was man.
datory, and directed him 10 restore to
tie complainant the possession and
tnjoymsnt of the courtroom.
He further states that when said in
jnnc ion was served on him he was in
The possession of the said courtroom
under the orders OF the Judge of the
Criminal Court, and in locking the
dooc there OF he only kept such posses
siop, and left the parties who were
conlendiDg therefor in statu quo.
50 far "a respondents actiols in the
premises were Concerned, it was pure.
ly in the discharge OF his duties as
Sher f, under Judge DUB SEES orders,
and that he never bad any interest in
the use or pos ssion Of the County
Courtroom. The order ives impt ra.
live, and took from him ell discre.
ton.
TIE furniture and other contents,
removed on the 18th day OF January,
was done by bsiliffs or persons spe-
cially appointed for such service by
the Criminal Court Judge, and that he
had no connection herewith. The
bsiliffs were not even attaches of his
office, and he had no knowledge Of the
proc eding. The removal OF the
Criminal Court effects into the vac At
ed County Courtroom was done by the
same bailiffs or persons, and that he
did not even furnish the key to gain
admission to the room to complete the
work.
Respondent denies that he in any
wise violated tue Injunction, fl
which he is held in contempt, and
asks to be dismissed with reasonable
COSTS.
Argument OF counsel consumed all
the sfterDo IN, and at its close Chan
crlor Elicit d scharged the rule to
show cause.